Chhattisgarh HC Dismisses Petition Challenging GST Order u/s 73 of on Availability of Statutory Remedy [Read Order]
The court found that the petitioner has alternative efficacious remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act of 2017.
![Chhattisgarh HC Dismisses Petition Challenging GST Order u/s 73 of on Availability of Statutory Remedy [Read Order]](https://www.taxscan.in/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/GST-order.jpg "Chhattisgarh HC Dismisses Petition Challenging GST Order u/s 73 of on Availability of Statutory Remedy [Read Order]")
In a recent case, the Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed a petition challenging an order under section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017, on the availability of statutory remedy. The petitioner, Abhiram Marketing Services, is listed on Respondent No. 3's books as a registered taxpayer under the terms of the CGST Act of 2017 and the SGST Act of 2017...
In a recent case, the Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed a petition challenging an order under section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017, on the availability of statutory remedy.
The petitioner, Abhiram Marketing Services, is listed on Respondent No. 3's books as a registered taxpayer under the terms of the CGST Act of 2017 and the SGST Act of 2017 with GSTIN 22AAICS2960C1ZP. The petitioner was a dealer who dealt in stoves, ranges, grates, and cookers, among other items.
Read More: Madras HC sets aside Rs 230.55 cr GST demand against IRFC
In light of the COVID pandemic, respondent No. 4 extended the deadline for compliance of any action taken by authorities or taxpayers between 20.3.2020 and 29.6.2020 to 30.06.2020 via notification No. 35/2020, Central Tax, dated 03.04.2020. Additionally, via notification No.14/2021-Central Tax, dated 1.5.2021, the deadline for compliance of any action taken by authorities or taxpayers between 15.4.2021 and 30.5.2021 was extended to 31.5.2021.
GST READY RECKONER: Complete Topic wise Circulars, Instructions & Guidelines CLICK HERE
The deadline for issuing an order under Section 73(10) for the tax period 2017–18 was subsequently extended until 30.09.2023 by Notification No. 13/2022–Central Tax, dated 5.7.2022, but the Notification makes no mention of "force majeure" circumstances. Subsequently, under Section 168A of the CGST Act, Notification No.9/2023-Central Tax, dated 31.3.2023, was issued. It extended the deadline for completing the adjudication of show cause notices issued under Section 73 for the tax period 2019–20 from 31.12.2023 to 31.03.2024.
Read More: Major Shuffle in Income Tax Department: CBDT Transfers Senior Officials
According to the records on the GST portal, Mr. Reddy argued that respondent No. 3 had issued a show-cause notice on May 29, 2024, for the 2019–20 tax period, proposing to levy tax under Section 73 of the GST Act on the grounds that the petitioner had claimed an excess Input Tax Credit ("ITC") of Rs. 40,22,339/-. Nevertheless, the petitioner was unable to respond to respondent No. 3's show cause notice. Without a response, respondent No. 3 proceeded to issue the contested ruling on August 27, 2024, which confirmed the tax liability of Rs. 43,75,104, the penalty of Rs. 4,37,510, and the interest of Rs. 34,17,616 under Section 50 of the GST Act.
The extension of time granted to conclude the proceedings under Section 73 for the year 2019-20, via Notification No.56/2023-Central Tax dated 28.12.2023 issued by the respondent No. 4, is contrary to Section 168A of the CGST/SGST Acts and can only be agitated before this Court, he further submitted, even though an appeal against the impugned order lies to the appellate authority under Section 107 of the Act. Therefore, this case is filed before this High Court claiming Article 226 of the Indian Constitution since the petitioner was wronged by the contested ruling that fastened tax burden against them without legal or jurisdictional authority.
Know How to File Appeals in GSTAT - CLICK HERE
Notification No. 56/2023CT was published without the GST Council's endorsement, and it is unlawful and unprofessional to invoke Section 168A of the CGST Act more than once for the same fiscal year. According to Mr. Reddy, the Court has halted identical proceedings in WPT No. 25/2024 through an interim decision dated 21.03.2024.
However, Mr. Ramakant Mishra, the Deputy Solicitor General of India (respondent No. 1), and Mr. Shashank Thakur, the Deputy Advocate General for the State (respondents Nos. 2 and 3), argue that this petition cannot be maintained because the petitioner has an effective alternative remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the Act of 2017. In essence, the petitioner is requesting that the Chhattisgarh GST Act 2017 be used to issue a comparable notification. Based solely on this, the petitioner wants the Notification No. 56/2023 to be declared extra vires. Notwithstanding this, the petitioner has not raised any grounds for this Court's indulgence or for deeming any notification to be outside its authority.
Read More: IFSCA Notifies KYC Registration Agency Regulations, 2025: Know Complete Details [Read Notification]
A two judge bench of Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal found that the petitioner has alternative efficacious remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act of 2017. The petitioner is seeking declaration of Notification No. 56/2023 dated 28.12.2023 to be ultra vires on the ground that the corresponding notification has not been issued by the respondent No. 2/State Government. That cannot be a ground for seeking declaration of the notification impugned herein to be ultra vires.
In any case, the petitioner has not presented any grounds worth considering in the case, and they are always free to use the appeals process as stipulated in Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2917. The petitioner is not in a situation where they have no recourse.
To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
